civilization – My Game Reviews

Civilization III: Koreans caught spying on China

Civilization III is much better than Civilization VII in spite of it being almost 25 years old at this point and it shows clearly in the interface.

I was playing a stream of Civilization III on Twitch and it is simply a much better game when navigating through the game. When you look at the above screenshot, you can clearly see everything that is happening on the map. The map is clean and understandable. There are not as many bells and whistles as in the later games, but it is functional and stylish. This is what many developers seem to forget about today, they are only able to create beautiful games not functional games that actually you want to enjoy.

The interface in every Civilization game is telling a story in a game that is all about the macro perspective. There is no first-person perspective to show you how the cities look so the Civilization games rely heavily on the interface in the game to tell you what is happening.

The meat and potatoes of games is just as important as the garnish or seasoning. Instead of focusing on what works, the people behind Civilization VII spent their time on myopic questions such as whether people are completing their games.

Civilization games are sandboxes, and we should let some people have some bruises.

Overoptimizing every game is why Civilization VII is behind in player counts and not considered to be a game that people want to play or even talk about.

Civilization III shows that aged wine is sometimes better than the new stuff out of the vinery and when it comes to software, that is even more likely in this age.

Civilization 7 Review: The Worst Game in the Series.

Civilization 7 is the worst game in the series. There are some who want to say that it has new ideas and not recycled ideas. I am guessing these are casual gamers or people who are easily swayed by marketing because this is basically SimCity Societies from 2007 in a Civ Game.

The issue is that the players who played the older games before Civ V have been seeing the changes and that it is becoming very much like Angry Birds and other forgotten mobile games, just a brand to put on mediocre gameplay and hide it with marketing.

The UI is terrible and when compared to Civ 1, it shows the generational changes and the malaise we are currently in this culture.

The Civ switching was a concern of mine earlier on and I see that Fraxis was lazy and put in a bunch of leaders who are not leaders but Great People.

The game does not have England in the game but hides behind a DLC and puts in a person, Ada Lovelace, who was not a political leader, phlisophical, or spiritual leader in any sense. The leader of England should be a King or Prime Minister. I would recommend King Charles II of the Restoration Era.

The Shawnee were put in the game for politics and yet Confucius can rule them. Do not use the CIV has never been about history. It has a tech tree which contains many of the most important technologies in human history. This is not a very good argument to using here.

The crisis system is lazy and does not provide context for what is happening. Having every Civ move into the same age is silly and makes the game too easy. There needs to be consequences to not being able to catch up in tech or economics. Having a reset does not make the game challenging. The Civ Switching doesn’t even stop the snowballing that they say they wanted to not have.

It is clear that the game has increasingly become attached to politics in America more and not just a game about history.

The map generation is terrible and worse than 20 year old games.

The positive reviews are people who generally enjoy simpler, easier games. While Microsoft is no saint of a company, they have made AOE 4 into a game that appeals to casuals and power users. They even encourage people to improve their tactics while also being a great platform for teaching history about multiple cultures, without being myopic about it.

Civilization 7 is the worst in the series. Civilization V was a strange experiment on launch but they did not railroad the player into 3 mini games.

Civilization VII is a game without a soul or passion.

Creating video games is tough. Being a programmer in the modern industry is like walking on knives. You have so many obstacles that are getting in the way and rewards are either great success or a failure which prevents from really enjoying the act of making games. Unlike other programmers, who tend to be rather focused on dry ideas and concepts, programmers are artists not accountants. This means that they have a creative spark in them.

That creative spark in a company is difficult to maintain. Civilization VII represents a series that is increasingly become more casual and not for the original group of fans who kept it going in the 1990s up until the release of Civilization V in 2010.

Civilization V was seen by many to be a downgrade from Civilization IV. Some have said that Civilization VI is a reaction to Civilization V while trying to fuse Civ V and IV in one cohesive whole.

However, it is clear that Civilization VII was a reaction aganist such compromise.

The team on this game seemed to be more interested in change than in continuity.

However, they did not even seem to put enough effort to make the change worthwhile. It is not even competent enough in order to keep the interest of players. Right now, Civilization VI is ahead of Civilization VII.

The early 2010s Civilization V, is still able to garner many players and is not far behind in player counts when comparing Civilization VII.

Creativity without spark is simply being a person on an assembly line who makes competent pieces that fit into a grander whole. This game is not able to convey that to player.

Civilization VII is a game without a soul or passion. It is clear the video game industry is clearly rusting and it is going to take new thinking to get out of this rut it is in.